Not likely. As a normally functioning human adult I can remember many hundreds of thousands of things I see and come in contact with. It’s a myth that just because I remember an ad, it’s working as intended. Quite the contrary in many cases. Some ads are so offensive I wouldn’t buy their products under any circumstances.
It’s a confirmation bias effect. Everyone ignores the vast majority of ads. But all it takes is for one to not be ignored, since there are so many people and so many ads.
One example I can think of is Backblaze. That’s an ad I heard in one of the few places where I allow ads–podcasts. It seems having the hosts actually have to read it and just the form of the content reduces most of the dishonest tactics, and blocking such ads is more complicated.
Anyways, I can’t pass up that, even though I normally hate ads. The $5/month price tag to back up everything is just too good. That one ad hitting home for one person may not seem a lot, but when you’re casting such a wide net (pretty much every podcast in existence), it makes financial sense.
I understand a lot of people feel the same about Audible, which is also even on videos. Or Brilliant.org. They’re actually advertising stuff they are interested in, and so they work. Not for me–I can find math problems elsewhere, and I abhor the Audible system not being like Netflix. But it’s there.
I spent most of my life in the radio and TV business. Here’s what I learned very early on. My job was not to create programs, it was to create an audience. The audience is what our salesmen were out in the street selling.
I assume advertisers are paying to put their stores on Googlemaps, which is the only way I can see them getting money for providing the mapping service for “free” to the general public. In my case, I mostly use their maps to look for things in other cities that I’m never going to visit. I suspect I’m not alone in this.
Now I wonder how they get money for Waldo hanging out on the left side of their maps. It just started happening tonight. I just clicked on him and it seems you can play Where’s Waldo? on their maps. Defintiely decline.
I’m not an expert on how Google makes money, but I think of it this way. When I use gmail, I have never once clicked on an ad in many many years of using it. But I know that if I did click an ad, it would mean but a few cents of revenue for Google. So if I have contributed zero to Google in many years of using gmail, I doubt there is another user out there clicking ads like crazy to fully pay for all the stuff that goes into providing gmail for both he and I. What’s more, I suspect that most gmail users rarely click ads.
So it just seems to me that Google is still likely making money off of me using gmail in ways that I don’t understand, which can only mean something about monetizing my usage habits or the data that resides in my gmail account. To me, that doesn’t mean that I’m not affected at all by enjoying a free service. It just means I’m not worrying about it because I don’t understand it.
That is considerably different than an ad in traditional media, which I do understand completely, and there is no way Geico is collecting information on me because they advertise in some magazine or whatever.
YMMV.
Yes. This is a common conceit, usually promoted in Communications 101 classes and by people who have jobs in marketing. But it doesn’t matter how many Geico ads you are forced to watch, (or that you remember), if you never buy Geico.
I think this myth is a hold-over from the once prevalent popular belief that anything that’s on TV must somehow have magic powers.
There’s no secret that’s how the magazine biz works too - by selling the readership to the advertisers. Any money they make on subscriptions is incidental.
I am full aware that I paid money. The point I was trying to make was that the game can be played for free, but your advancement will be slower.
Yes, you can buy premium ships as high as tier VIII and enjoy driving, er sailing it around and they do give you XP bonuses. The experienced players love to see them because they’re easy targets; the working phrase is, “you can’t buy skills.” Since you’re talking about tanks, I assume you mean Wargaming’s sister game, World of Tanks. Quite a few WoWS players bailed from WoT just because of the premium matchmaking and also “gold ammunition” which hits harder. A lesson seems to have been learned because the developers have stated that neither will be introduced in WoWS.
That’s actually a major point of contention with a lot of gamers. The “pay to win” business model where the standard account player with the stock load-out are massively outclassed by players who often spend a small (real $) fortune to get the top of the line gun/tank/spaceship. Suck games become less about skill than size of your bank account.
I do see it as a downside in this case, specifically because of what Tee references below:
That is the reason I refuse to use Google photos, or any other that would use my pictures for whatever purpose they desire. In my mind it’d absolutely not worth it, even though the odds of my stuff being used are vanishingly small.
Selling user information to advertisers is one thing, and it’s been going on since virtually the dawn of print, but free reign to use my copyrighted material is another altogether.
I often wonder how I’m the product if I watch free porn. I use an ad blocker, incognito and don’t subscribe to anything. How am I the product?
Given the vast amounts of bandwith such sites use there musr be a substantial revenue stream somewhere. Maybe commisssions for users who sign up for paid content?
“Incognito” does not prevent cookiesfrom gathering all manner of data about your browsing history, among other things. That data is then sold. You are the product.
You are likely the subject of hacking attempts - free porn sites are notorious for malware. Running an ad blocker and being incognito aren’t going to protect you from all attacks. At that point your valuable data and/or access to your machine for additional malicious behavior is the product that is eventually being sold.